shelterpaw
Aug 7, 03:13 PM
My house is not wired for ethernet. Which means, I would have to snake a wire through 3 floors, drill holes in the ceiling, etc etc. Its sooo much easier just to have airport. I have 3meg internet service and I cannot tell a difference between wired and wifi. My wireless will hit ~10mb/s transfer if I'm moving a large file from one computer to another. Obviously, that 10mb/s is faster then my 3meg internet service. My internet service is the bottleneck, not the wireless. Therefore....no difference in speed.
Second, I have BT keyboard, mouse, and phone. I use BT all the time. Sure, I can just order the option. However, that means I cant just run to my local apple store and pick up a Mac Pro. Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm almost in the exact same situation you're in and it doesn't make sense to me either. I've always felt the pro machine should incorporate everything a consumer model carries, plus pro features.
However, they're still pretty slick machines and I'm looking forward to getting one.
Second, I have BT keyboard, mouse, and phone. I use BT all the time. Sure, I can just order the option. However, that means I cant just run to my local apple store and pick up a Mac Pro. Its absolute crap that a ~$600 Macmini has these options standard, and yet Apples $4000 top of the line machine doesnt. Unacceptable.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm almost in the exact same situation you're in and it doesn't make sense to me either. I've always felt the pro machine should incorporate everything a consumer model carries, plus pro features.
However, they're still pretty slick machines and I'm looking forward to getting one.
danielwsmithee
Aug 11, 05:32 PM
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)Yeah it would be like twice as thick as the current MBP and they could auction it off to the highest bidder. Here is guessing that some Apple finatic would pay a million dollars for it to display in his gallery.
kntgsp
Apr 24, 04:52 AM
Apple's problem is that they put "Looks" before performance.
They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.
As for the future who knows.
That issue could have been largely solved if they had just faced a standard high end GPU with the intake facing towards the back and the exhaust on the side. But Apple is too vain to put a vent on the rear of the iMac to accomodate the intake of a high quality GPU, let alone a slim exhaust vent on the side.
If they had simply used a standard GPU like that it would have opened up quality gaming on the Mac and made it simple to upgrade to newer cards so that people didn't have to chuck the entire computer every time they wanted a new video card.
They crippled their chances of ever becoming a serious competitor to the PC for games due to deciding to use giant laptops on a stand which meant they could not cool any decent graphics cards, handing the gaming crown to the PC for years on a plate.
As for the future who knows.
That issue could have been largely solved if they had just faced a standard high end GPU with the intake facing towards the back and the exhaust on the side. But Apple is too vain to put a vent on the rear of the iMac to accomodate the intake of a high quality GPU, let alone a slim exhaust vent on the side.
If they had simply used a standard GPU like that it would have opened up quality gaming on the Mac and made it simple to upgrade to newer cards so that people didn't have to chuck the entire computer every time they wanted a new video card.
Adidas Addict
Apr 20, 04:42 AM
�499 for a white iPhone 5 and you can count me in, again. I've just sold my iPhone 4.
Now to carry on avoiding all the Verizon/AT&T nonsense on here. :rolleyes:
Word
Now to carry on avoiding all the Verizon/AT&T nonsense on here. :rolleyes:
Word
paolo-
Apr 9, 08:29 PM
Mac'nCheese: I think that in elementary school you first learn to multiply and then to divide. So first you multiply and then you divide.
That left to right rule is not following the order of the letters.
So for this case it is not PEMDAS but PEDMAS...
The Arabs give us the numbers that we use nowadays, and they do write from right to left.
So your math teacher is telling us that Mac OS X is giving us a wrong answer...You might need to watch waiting for Superman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMDAS#Mnemonics
Why I think lots of people don't understand math and get frustrated at science/engineering and math is because they learn tricks instead of actually understanding what they are doing. (Not saying this is your case McGiord)
That left to right rule is not following the order of the letters.
So for this case it is not PEMDAS but PEDMAS...
The Arabs give us the numbers that we use nowadays, and they do write from right to left.
So your math teacher is telling us that Mac OS X is giving us a wrong answer...You might need to watch waiting for Superman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEMDAS#Mnemonics
Why I think lots of people don't understand math and get frustrated at science/engineering and math is because they learn tricks instead of actually understanding what they are doing. (Not saying this is your case McGiord)
Eraserhead
Apr 14, 03:30 PM
I want line items on every single thing spent.
You actually have to be sensible about these things. Doing that would require a giant bureaucracy to verify.
Its quite clear that the UK government has far too much paperwork to fill in. If they (say) spend 20% of their time doing paperwork, and they instead spent 20% of their time down the pub we wouldn't really be any worse off.
You actually have to be sensible about these things. Doing that would require a giant bureaucracy to verify.
Its quite clear that the UK government has far too much paperwork to fill in. If they (say) spend 20% of their time doing paperwork, and they instead spent 20% of their time down the pub we wouldn't really be any worse off.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
RedTomato
Aug 7, 03:28 PM
Apple's newest and greatest always has high prices, then they will come down.
With the Gx range, this didn't happen as IBM rarely changed their prices.
Welcome to the new Intel world where prices change on a monthly basis.
Remember when the Mac Mini were introduced?
First they were quite expensive, then prices came down within a few weeks.
I can't remember when the next Intel price drop is expected - someone tell us please? (probably in about 2 or 3 months time - Octoberish.)
With the Gx range, this didn't happen as IBM rarely changed their prices.
Welcome to the new Intel world where prices change on a monthly basis.
Remember when the Mac Mini were introduced?
First they were quite expensive, then prices came down within a few weeks.
I can't remember when the next Intel price drop is expected - someone tell us please? (probably in about 2 or 3 months time - Octoberish.)
suneohair
Sep 15, 04:20 PM
Sounds good. Hope it happens for those waiting for it.
I also hope the design is revamped i.e. magnetic latch etc.
Maybe an ACD update to boot?
I also hope the design is revamped i.e. magnetic latch etc.
Maybe an ACD update to boot?
Dr.Gargoyle
Nov 22, 06:12 AM
No, the rumor mill has been grinding on the iPhone for several years. Apple hasn't necessarily been working on it for that long.
I do think I remember an interview with an Apple of official where the interviewer asked something about a possible Apple iPhone and got a reply claiming that Apple haven't been sitting idle.
I have no doubt that Apple have been working on this for years. The problem is that Apple has a lot to live up to when it comes to design and GUI. They just can't afford another Rokr fiasco.
I do think I remember an interview with an Apple of official where the interviewer asked something about a possible Apple iPhone and got a reply claiming that Apple haven't been sitting idle.
I have no doubt that Apple have been working on this for years. The problem is that Apple has a lot to live up to when it comes to design and GUI. They just can't afford another Rokr fiasco.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 28, 10:26 AM
How long did Apple spend announcing the iPhone 3GS at WWDC in 2009? It was about 15 minutes at most. If the next iPhone is only a slight bump like the 3GS was then that's all the time and attention that needs to be given to it.
ghostlines
Mar 27, 03:57 AM
I think this implies that they'll be spending more time on Lion. Which they should now focus on in my opinion. I know it's a large company but sometimes you need to dedicate some yourself to one thing at a time. Especially if they want Lion to live up to it's name.
Don't panic
May 4, 01:21 PM
so, the obvious thing is to search this room and then eventually split/move.
everyone agree? Dante?
where do you guys want to go next? forward or back to start to explore the other doors?
BoneHead ^uphere^ could have put traps/monster in either, or both.
Raven, did i assume correctly that new traps and monster can only go in empty rooms (as far as heroes are concerned)? can a room have both a trap and a monster?
everyone agree? Dante?
where do you guys want to go next? forward or back to start to explore the other doors?
BoneHead ^uphere^ could have put traps/monster in either, or both.
Raven, did i assume correctly that new traps and monster can only go in empty rooms (as far as heroes are concerned)? can a room have both a trap and a monster?
Sambo110
Apr 23, 09:15 PM
The current iMac's can't even run games at 2560x1440 very well, so an even higher resolution? Unless they want to stick a desktop Radeon 6950 (at least) in there, it just wouldn't work. Surely Apple sees how important gaming is with iOS and Steam?
gramirez2012
Mar 28, 10:34 AM
Not cool. Coming from an iPhone 3GS, I seriously don't want to wait.
I'm still on the 3G! I really can't wait for the new iPhone! My contract is up in July.
I'm still on the 3G! I really can't wait for the new iPhone! My contract is up in July.
stuarty2003
Mar 31, 03:12 AM
I reckon Lion will be the last of cat names used for OS X.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
They can't really call the next one Ocelot, for example.
Wolfpup
Nov 4, 10:30 PM
Huh. This is really cool, but I'm not familiar with the brand...don't know if it's good, or even legitimate for that matter.
Still, it's cool to see someone finally offer it free. Windows has had multiple choices for a few years, so this is good news for OS X fans!
Still, it's cool to see someone finally offer it free. Windows has had multiple choices for a few years, so this is good news for OS X fans!
codyc815
Apr 26, 04:51 PM
you guys are still in denial.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
That's why, although they're not the main OS used, they are the number one phone supplier
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
That's why, although they're not the main OS used, they are the number one phone supplier
acslater017
Apr 18, 02:57 PM
couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.
It's a two-way relationship. By "getting back" at Apple, they'd probably be giving up their biggest customer.
All of these companies are interconnected. They support each other when it's beneficial, they attack when it's beneficial. The "wars" between game consoles, HD discs, and other competitions make strange bedfellows...
It's a two-way relationship. By "getting back" at Apple, they'd probably be giving up their biggest customer.
All of these companies are interconnected. They support each other when it's beneficial, they attack when it's beneficial. The "wars" between game consoles, HD discs, and other competitions make strange bedfellows...
dante@sisna.com
Aug 7, 06:37 PM
Not really significantly faster than the G5 Quad. Maybe 50% faster at best. As owner of a Quad G5 my motivation would be more about the 6 bays and the FW 800 and extra USB 2 port on the front than the speed. :) Not worth the extra money to go 3GHz - 33% more money for 12% more speed doesn't make economic sense. Need 8 cores inside.
Agreed!
The next 2 releases of the MacPro are the ones I'll buy.
I am very happy I purchased my PowerMac Quad -- It has made me a lot of money in production multitasking. Fantastic Machine with NATIVE software that works NOW, with few minor bugs which I am sure will surface with the MacPros.
DJO
Agreed!
The next 2 releases of the MacPro are the ones I'll buy.
I am very happy I purchased my PowerMac Quad -- It has made me a lot of money in production multitasking. Fantastic Machine with NATIVE software that works NOW, with few minor bugs which I am sure will surface with the MacPros.
DJO
RebootD
Mar 30, 09:12 PM
I lol'd. No matter what people will complain. When Snow Leopard was released people wanted more UI changes and more features. Now when Lion is released all people want is under the hood improvements. SMH
No no no, we want useful UI improvements not iOS fluff.
No no no, we want useful UI improvements not iOS fluff.
codyc815
Apr 26, 04:51 PM
you guys are still in denial.
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
That's why, although they're not the main OS used, they are the number one phone supplier
the fact is...most people dont want an iphone. the reports says it and the sales numbers proves it. its not about the limit availability of the iphone or contract issues...its just doesn't appeal to most people.
That's why, although they're not the main OS used, they are the number one phone supplier
ecphot
Mar 30, 09:34 PM
Yes it is true. It is hidden by default now. Takes only a second to make it appear again though, so I don't see why it's that big of a deal? Any technical user that needs to see the Library folder will enable it, and anyone who isn't technical enough won't ever need to access it.
then will it stay in the sidebar like it is now or do we have to use the "go to" command everytime?
then will it stay in the sidebar like it is now or do we have to use the "go to" command everytime?
LarryC
May 6, 01:49 AM
If my understanding of processor architectures are correct, the CISC processors have become a hybrid. There's a core part that is probably more similar to a RISC and a pre-processor that translates the CISC operations to the core. At least this was my understanding of the AMD Thunderbird chips from 10+ years ago. RISC chips moved in a similar and opposite direction, adding more instructions. Kind of counter to the original idea of RISC.
Thank you.
Thank you.
